The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/23/2000— MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION _ MAY 23, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners iL-2. 3. 4. George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka and Steve Tye. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez; Administrative Secretary. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the May 9, 2000 meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 9, 2000, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None MAY 23, 2000 PAGE 2 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Development Review No. 2000-03, and Variance No. 2000-03 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020 and 22.54.010) is a request to construct a two-story single family residence with a basement and five -car garage for a total of approximately 23,000 square feet. The request also includes a tennis court and retaining walls. The Variance request is related to retaining walls of varying height, with a maximum height of 10 feet and decreased setbacks for the tennis court. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 2819 Water Course Drive (Lots 33/46 of Tract No. 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve 01111!"I", Development Review No. 2000-03, Variance No. 2000-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Tye asked for clarification of the tennis court 30 foot front yard setback. However, staff's report indicates that the proposed front yard setback is 25 feet from the property line. AssocP/Lungu responded that in this zone, setbacks for residential structures are 30 feet in the front and 10 and 15 feet on the sides. These setbacks are also required for accessory structures (see page 4). The project is 25 feet. DCM/DeStefano explained to C/Kuo that staff's report indicates that a 35 feet height maximum is permitted for residential projects and further discusses a maximum of two stories which is incorrect. The City used to set forth a maximum of two stories. The current Development Code sets a framework of 35 feet (height) for structure with whatever number of livable stories might be included within the space. Therefore, this project complies with the overall height of 35 feet although a portion of it is at three (3) stories. Kurt Nelson, Diamond Bar West LLC, stated that the project follows the varying terrain within the 35 feet height requirement. This tract was approved some time ago as a Vesting Map. Many lots in this tract were designed and graded in conjunction with the old setbacks. This tract had an obligation to preserve at least 40 feet between residential structures and this one is substantially greater than the 40 feet. The retaining wall allows the tennis court to be nestled in. Where it is once WAY 23, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION the mandatory surround and landscaping is in he believes the two -foot difference between the old and new setback requirements would not be visible from the street and adjacent properties. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Zirbes congratulated Richard Gould on an impressive structure. He likes the project and has no concerns. He thanked DCM/DeStefano and AssocP/Lungu for their assistance in clarifying the matter of the retaining wall. AssocP/Lungu responded to Chair/Nelson that the landscape plans for the balance of the site are typically done after the buyer moves in. The landscaping for the tennis court will be done prior to move -in. �._ Chair/Nelson asked staff to monitor landscape plans so that they do not include pompous grass because wind blown seeds can be scattered into the SEA. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-03, Variance No. 2000-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. COMMISSIONERS: AYES: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson COMMISSIONERS: NOES: None COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None 8. PUBLIC HEARING: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Tye thanked staff for the gift presented to the Commissioners. He asked about a location on Torito Lane and Golden Springs Drive formerly known as Millers Video. Half of the location is now occupied by a CPA and half of the site is occupied by a cleaners and would not a cleaners qualify to come before the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit. DCM/DeStefano stated that the old code required a conditional use permit for certain type cleaners. Assuming that it does require some form of discretionary hearing before the Director or Planning Commission, staff would immediately begin code enforcement proceedings to ensure that such a hearing took place and depending on the circumstances either stop the operation or allow the operation some grace v_�_ period to work with staff while the permit process went to conclusion. According to staff, this business is MAY 23, 2000 PAGE 4 PLAIVMNG COMMISSION a drop off/pick up only site which is different than some that have a small plant on-site. On-site plants require a public hearing. C/Tye stated that over the past four weeks the Commissioners have received correspondence from residents on Washington Street. Even though this is a City of Industry project, would the Planning Commission see this matter for consideration of removing the cul-de-sac to allow the connecting of Washington Street to Grand Avenue. DCM/DeStefano responded that the letters are copies of letters that have been sent to staff and City Council. The letters are a result of the Majestic Project a.k.a. the Industry East Development Project which is a 425 acre development that is being proposed just north of the terminus of Washington Street east of Brea Canyon Road. It is proposed that about 6.6 million square feet of buildings will be constructed on that site. Residents at the end of Washington Street have concerns about losing their vacant land and the agricultural area, and it turning into an industrial park. The area has been zoned Industrial Park for over 40 years. The Industry plans show a connection from Washington Street through the vacant site to Grand Avenue. The residents are concerned that this will disrupt their quality of life by creating traffic noise and other types of issues. It is the City's position that any connection to Washington Street would require an amendment to the City's General Plan. An application for a General Plan amendment would be required to re-classify Washington Street from a cul-de-sac to a through street. A General Plan amendment would require a recommendation from the Planning Commission after conclusion of a public hearing with a final decision from the City Council after their public hearing. The City continues to discuss with the City of Industry that Washington Street should not be connected and should remain a cul-de-sac. C/Tye asked how the City can address setbacks to avoid a mass of buildings on the street. DCM/DeStefano responded that staff attempts to visualize what the street scape might look like in the future within the Code standards and implement standards through the project approvals. A good example is the Pulte project, which determined that there should be a variable front yard setback to eliminate a somewhat canyon effect of houses at the same setback with basically the same architectural pattern on the same street. DCM/DeStefano cited examples of undesirable effects. VC/Zirbes thanked staff and the City for the pen and pencil set. He again ,thanked AssocP/Lungu for her assistance this afternoon. WAY 23, 2000 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: PAGE 5 10.1. Public Hearing dates for future projects - as listed. PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano reiterated the light summer schedule for the Planning Commission. In light of vacations and the light project schedule, the Commission may wish to consider going dark on one regular meeting night. On June 13, the Commission will consider the 2000/2001 Capital Improvement Program for General Plan conformity. CSD/Rose and the City's consultant will provide a status report on the development of the City's Parks and Trails Master Plan toward the end of summer. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. !,DJOURNMENT: ,-,--,/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, i J es DeStefano Deputy City Man ger Attest: S e Nelson Chairman